Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Description: As 2017 is closing, new class action lawsuits have been filed in the courts against Apple. Class Action number 15 was filed by law firm Cohen & Malad on behalf of Peter A. Schroeder of Indianapolis...

As 2017 is closing, new class action lawsuits have been filed in the courts against Apple. Class Action number 15 was filed by law firm Cohen & Malad on behalf of Peter A. Schroeder of Indianapolis Indiana. According to Schroeder, "Apple Inc.’s unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone versions prior to the iPhone 8 (the “Legacy Devices”) to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of the Legacy Devices."

constitutes a deceptive consumer sales practice and breach of the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing implied in Apple’s contracts with Plaintiff and the class.

Plaintiff and the class were harmed as a direct and proximate result of Apple’s

actions.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated, as members of a nationwide class preliminarily defined as:

All consumers who (a) reside in the United States, (b) owned an Apple
Legacy Device and upgraded to iOS 10.2.1 or a later version prior to
the date of this Complaint, and (c) who purchased that iPhone within
the United States.

In addition, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of an Indiana sub-Class

preliminarily defined as:

All consumers who (a) reside in the Indiana, (b) owned an Apple
Legacy Device and upgraded to iOS 10.2.1 or a later version prior to
the date of this Complaint, and (c) who purchased that iPhone within
the United States.

20. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

21. The class consists of hundreds of thousands or more persons, such that

joinder of all Class members is impracticable.

22. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the Class

members that relate to Apple’s uniform conduct.

23. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the proposed

Class because they are based on the same legal theories, and Plaintiff has no